Menu

Band of Brothers

Peterson drops the ball in a couple of forgivable instances here. First, many contemporary studies show that women do in fact enter an estrus state. Secondly, while he is entirely correct about women’s Hypergamy never seeking its own level, he implies here that it is singularly a man’s capacity to produce and share resources that forms the basis for women’s attraction. This is an interesting overlook when you consider how often he’s made reference to how women primarily look for sexual dominance in men. From the Beta Bucks, provisioning, side of women’s sexual strategy, a man’s capacity for production and sharing resources is certainly an attraction cue, but it is only a cue insofar as it applies to women’s long term security needs. From the Alpha Fucks, short term mating perspective, it is a man’s capacity for sexual arousal and his sexual availability to her that is the basis for assessing a man’s SMV.

I have a great deal of respect for Dr. Peterson. I count him amongst the greatest minds of Red Pill awareness, however, his analysis is often subject to a Blue Pill conditioning that predisposes him to a default belief in the inherent ‘goodness’ of the female psyche. That isn’t to say women are inherently ‘bad’, but it is to say his objectivity is colored by a want to see the feminine on a pedestal. Peterson tends to pepper in a Blue Pill conditioned masculine ridicule into his observations about men when he’s detailing gender differences and it’s his habit to presume the best from women. He accurately makes the case here for how men are continually driven by an existential crisis when it comes to being accepted by (‘perfectly well-intended’) women in passing on their genetic material, but falls into the trap of believing that women would only, logically, want to breed with men who have good long term prospects for providing and sharing resources. There’s a 30+ year body of evo-bio / evo-psych research that contradicts his presumption.

However, in this instance, Peterson hits upon the fundamental reasoning as to why men are by nature more competitive than women. Over the millennia of human evolution, the stresses of men’s breeding strategies and realities has become hardwired into the male mental firmware, and as such it has selected-for men having a more competitive nature than women. I would go so far as to suggest that competitiveness is a primary aspect of conventional masculinity – and one that requires a constant effort to socialize out of modern males today.

On the female side we have to consider how women evolved, socially and psychologically, in hunter-gatherer, foraging tribes, and how the environmental stress of maintaining a social collective shaped women’s mental firmware. It’s my belief that women’s intense need for long term security (as well as Hypergamous doubt) is directly descended from the need to hedge against the environmental uncertainties of our evolutionary past. The rigors of gestation, carrying a child to term, child birth and then rearing that child to puberty – all while gathering food and resources and defending that child and the collective against external (and sometime internal) threats selected-for women with a collectivist / cooperative mental firmware. While the men of the tribal society were off hunting game or defending the tribe, it would follow that women would develop a more unitary, collectivist social order of intrasexual cooperation in order to survive and, as Dr. Peterson points out, ensure that the genetic material of the men they selected (or were selected by) survived for posterity.

There are several studies that indicate that collectivism is a characteristic of women’s mental firmware. When presented with the distribution of a common wealth (or resource) it’s women’s predisposition to mete those resources out to the familial, feminine-primary social group (tribe) in as even a distribution as possible, or by an individual’s most pressing needs. Again, this is convincing evidence of a mental framework that leans towards a collectivism that finds its roots in our evolutionary past.

This fundamental prioritizing of the survival, needs and best interests of women as a collective is what now forms the basis of, and drives, what I commonly refer to as the Feminine Imperative. And from the Feminine Imperative, combined with a male-permissive social structure that has allowed for women’s social primacy, we have largely developed into a feminine-primary social order that is founded on the evolved, collectivist social structure that women’s mental firmware naturally predisposes them to.

Collectivism, socialism, is a fundamental aspect of the female psyche. In a social order that prioritizes female interests above all else we see the rise and perpetuation of an egalitarian equalism that finds its roots in women’s natural predisposition for collectivism. I would argue here that the egalitarian equalism we contend with today is really a convenient cover-term for female social primacy, and one that is a result of women’s collectivist nature.

Male Dominance Hierarchies

As Dr. Peterson briefly details in this clip, it is primarily men’s performance burden (and a man’s capacity to share the fruits of it) that has historically been the basis of women’s selection criteria for the long term provisioning aspect of women’s Hypergamous natures. And as I mentioned, this only covers half of what makes for women’s true assessments of men’s sexual market value. DNA mapping of our foraging ancestors reveals the real story about the importance sexual arousal and strategic pluralism played in women’s sexual selection. Historically, only 20% of men bred with 80% of women. If we only look at this fact from Peterson’s perspective we’re left to conclude that this 20% looked like good long term prospects with resources to share, rather than consider the uglier side of Hypergamy and women opportunistically breeding with the best physical specimens they had access to and, proactively or retroactively, cuckolding the ‘good provider’. The mental schema of mate guarding didn’t develop in a vacuum – there are very good evolutionary reasons why men developed a subconscious, peripheral sensitivity to the behaviors that indicate women’s ovulatory phase.

Hypergamy doesn’t care, but it did indeed play a part in the evolution of men’s dominance hierarchies as Peterson suggests. Whether the criteria for selection was physical prowess or provisional prowess, the breeding pressures placed on men by women’s sexual strategy is responsible for a great deal of what we consider the male nature and conventional masculinity itself. While it may be a pleasant fiction for men to apply terms like strength and honor and fidelity to male-kind, those concepts exist outside the evolved male-competitive nature. Kings and emperors had breeding rights to harems while their subjects, by order of degree, had sexual access to progressively diminishing opportunities with women.

One aspect I think Peterson didn’t get around to explaining in this clip is that women have only had unilateral sexual selection opportunity in the past century due to the social and physical unfettering of Hypergamy. Being a king may’ve meant that man had more breeding opportunities than that of his lessers, but it in no way made him the best, or even the willing, choice for the women he bred with. Up until the rise of feminine social primacy, men have always had social, moral, ethical and yes, physical, means of exerting their own control over Hypergamy.

Competitiveness is what defines masculinity for every generation of men. While it may be part of women’s mental firmware to consider the collective first with regard to resource distribution, it is most definitely an evolved characteristic of men to accrue resources in order to be considered a good prospect for women’s long term security needs. When we consider the criteria women have in order for a man to represent an optimal Hypergamous prospect, it makes pragmatic sense that an innate competitiveness would be part of men’s psychological firmware. Nature would select-for a natural competitiveness in men. As such we observe that men consider merit and performance first in distributing resources (rewards) in order to recognize, in theory, an exceptionality in men. Even if it is within our selfish-gene nature to want to retain as much for ourselves (and thus make ourselves better prospects for Hypergamous optimization) we still recognize merit, or lack of it, in men’s burden of performance.

So, with regard to the bigger societal picture, what we’re seeing in our egalitarian equalist social experiment of today is not just a conflict in men and women’s social approaches, but also a fundamental conflict in which sex’s sexual strategy will be the socially predominant one. In a social sense it is a conflict in the Cardinal Rule of Sexual Strategies. Since the time of the Sexual Revolution the answer has been clear; it is women’s sexual strategy that has been allowed to define our social order.

Brotherhood

Jack Donovan had a great post back in February titled We are not Brothers. I entirely cosign his sentiment in this essay – today men bandy around the term Brother without really considering the deeper implications that true, in-group, exclusively male, brotherhood entails. It’s a good essay, but I think one reason Jack is sensitive to the term losing its meaning is due to the efforts the Feminine Imperative has made in destroying men’s understanding of conventional masculinity. It’s deliberate, so Brotherhood means whatever the feminine feels comfortable in allowing it to mean, and it can effect control over its significance for as long as it can continue to confuse men about the sacrificial nature of conventional masculinity.

Men’s dominance hierarchies and breeding strategies predispose men to maverick independence (sigmas) or intrasexual rivalries within a fraternal group (tribes). Men’s collective, cooperative social structures – traditionally, exclusive male spaces – existed in spite of this intrasexually competitive nature. Even amongst the most steadfast, cooperative and loyal of brotherhoods there will always be intrasexual rivalries for breeding opportunities. And as Jordan B. Peterson notes, it is women’s Hypergamy that gives rise to male dominance hierarchies, but moreover it has led to the necessity for developing an evolved predisposition for men’s being competitive.

It is precisely this competitive mental firmware in men which makes it next to impossible for their to ever be a Brotherhood Über Alles – and in an age where men are shamed for masculinity, an age in which women will force themselves into male space as overseers, an age where men will adaptively define masculinity to mean whatever suits their weakest proficiencies, it’s easy to understand the difficulties in men cooperatively coming together to enforce their own collective best interests as men. In ages past, when masculine cooperation determined the fate of a tribe, a people, a nation, etc. this fraternity was a much more imperative concept for men.

It’s been noted before that in earlier eras formalized monogamy was a social adaptation with the latent purpose of solving men’s evolved imperative to ensure his own paternity. Whether this adaptation was (is) a successful hedge against women’s Hypergamy is debatable, but the relative insurance a man was afforded by formal monogamy was that he could send his genetic material on to successive generations. From an evolutionary perspective, men’s primary existential crisis is reproduction, and in order to successfully solve this problem women’s Hypergamy must be controlled for. As this push for male control superseded women’s imperatives it’s made for a social guarantee that a man would reproduce with a lessened need for competition and a lessened burden of performance for men. While high SMV men were guaranteed reproduction, the monogamy adaptation meant that, theoretically, only the lowliest of men wouldn’t find a mate.

That was the latent socio-sexual contract prior to the Sexual Revolution. Today, we see parallels for this struggle between men and women’s sexual strategies and women’s own social push to unilaterally control and institutionalize Hypergamy. Now the script has been flipped to socially create and enforce a new feminine-primary structure that has the latent purpose of ensuring even the lowest SMV woman can fulfill Hypergamy to a greater degree. Just as formal monogamy sought to ensure men could solve their reproductive purpose in spite of his performance burden, now we have women as the primary beneficiaries of a society structured to, theoretically, ensure they have access to both the best genes (Alpha Fucks) and the best provisioning (Beta Bucks) – all to the point that men are conscripted into doing so.

As women have less and less need of men who can (directly) produce and share resources the concept of masculine cooperation in enforcing their best interests becomes a farce at best, a ‘hate crime’ at worst. The more women can produce and/or consume resources, or conscript men to involuntarily produce and share, the more women lean towards the Alpha Fucks aspect of Hypergamy in prioritizing their sexual selection. As a result, male dominance hierarchies will continue to develop around the short term sexual breeding criteria of women. In the past, as per Dr. Peterson, that hierarchy may have been centered on long term provisioning; today it is all about women’s pleasure in accessing the best genetic material her evolved hindbrain determines is in her best interests.

Yet still we hear women bemoan a lack of marriageable, long term producer/sharers who are their (perceived) status equals or better (always better). The evolved need for that security providing, competent male is still part of her mental firmware, no matter what the social conventions of the Feminine Imperative are telling her conscious self. And in a pragmatic, adaptive response, men will continue to define masculinity for themselves, continue to prioritize short term sexual arousal above long term attraction, and continue to be befuddled or embarrassed by the ideas of forming Brotherhoods with any deeper meaning than what pop culture will define them for men as.

Late edit: Reader Novaseeker had a brilliant observation about the reasons women’s collectivism evolved.

The innate sisterhood, or herd, also arises from the reality that most human tribes were patrilocal and not matrilocal. That is, the core of the tribe was a group of males bonded by kin, and they brought in females from other tribes (trade/conquest) routinely for mating. Thus, the males had relatively high levels of cooperation due to being kin-bonded (not perfect levels of cooperation — rivalries always exist, violence happens in kin bonds as well — but much higher than among non-kin-bonded males), whereas the females had to adapt to cooperate with the other females despite the lack of kin bonds between them as a kind of counterweight to the innate solidarity that the kin-bonded males had vis-a-vis the females. The kind of female sisterhood/collectivism that we see in women evolved, in addition to what you write about, as well from the need to counteract the male solidarity in patrilocal tribes — women evolved to cooperate with other “strange” women in the face of this male solidarity which was based on kin bonds.

A key point of this — and something which explains much of the behavior of women *politically* in the last 200 years or so — is that the context in which this evolved was specifically to counterweigh male power. That is, because females would otherwise have remained weak and isolated in the face of a tribe of kin-bonded males, they evolved this sisterhood/collective mentality specifically to provide a counterweight to male power. This is important, because it’s this specific context in which this mentality comes to the fore most prominently in women, even today. Women can fight and scratch and claw with each other and be bitches with each other incessantly, but when one of them comes into conflict with a man or “with men”, the sisterhood/collective mindset kicks in in high gear, precisely because this is the specific context it emerged to counter. In other words, it’s specifically evolved to offset male power, to counterbalance male power, by forging solidarity between females who otherwise would not have any reason to act like a sisterhood (and who may even dislike each other).

Contemporary feminism is perhaps the most obvious form of this, but it isn’t the only one. The pronounced female in-group preference is another easy to spot one as well. But in any case, a key point to understand is that the sisterhood isn’t neutral — it’s evolved to counterbalance any kind of male power that threatens women’s interests as a group. This is the case even though women haven’t lived in patrilocal conditions for a long, long, long time, and even though contemporary men have no solidarity to speak of at all which could possibly threaten women’s interest as a group. That evolutionary history casts long shadows, and the tendency for women to see men as a cabal acting to control women — when in fact, as we all know, we’re kind of the exact opposite of that — arises from the collective evolutionary memory of adaptations to deal with the very real male solidarity females faced when they were imported into patrilocal male tribes of kin-bonded males.

Post navigation

443 comments

First, many contemporary studies show that women do in fact enter an estrus state.

An overwhelming plethora of in the field observations about post-menopausal women shows that women’s estrus state is likely irrelevant when it comes to women seeking alpha fux. Alphas’ feminine-arousal-inducing behavior is almost certainly the key factor in causing women to seek alpha fux. Estrus state is more likely a big factor in a woman accepting beta fux with a LRT partner. As expected with my theory, once women enter menopause, they become less and less willing to accept sex from a beta partner, since the occurrence of estrus state diminishes as menopause progresses.

A lot gets written about the benefits of Hypergamy. Nature has pre-selected “the woman” to select her mating partner to ensure only the best genes make it into the future. While it makes sense in theory, human civilization made much of its progress in the last 1,000 years, an era in which monogamy was the norm and mate guarding ensured every man got to pass on their genes into the future.

Since the sexual revolution, women have had complete control over the societal norms to ensure that they can optimize their Hypergamy. So, in theory the men born in the last 60 years should be the strongest and as a species we should have the best of men among us today. But has it turned out this way? We see that by allowing Hypergamy to go unchecked, we have the weakest men among us today. If women have such great psychic powers to select “the best genes”, why do we have rampant homosexuality, why do we have gender benders and trannies running amok destroying society, why are still 80 percent of the men considered “beta”?

Hypergamy thrives in a society dominated by the FI, but as we see in present times, it has not produced the best of men, rather it has produced the weakest and worst that have ever walked the planet.

Eighty percent of the males do not get to reproduce, by the lowliest of women get to. I know Hypergamy doesn’t care, nature doesn’t care, Evolution doesn’t care. That is the bitter truth.

“Yet still we hear women bemoan a lack of marriageable, long term producer/sharers … The evolved need for that security providing, competent male is still part of her mental firmware, no matter what the social conventions of the Feminine Imperative are telling her conscious self.”

Bad conclusion, Rollo. You’re assuming that women want something because they SAY that they want it?

@Rollo: there is an aspect that I find interesting that I’d like you (and others) to comment on, about the men being competitive and women being cooperative. I agree, but on the other hand we also see competitive men being cooperative and honorable, at least among the “tribe”, partly to compete with other tribes and therefore building more cooperative societies… Whereas women are often cooperative with each other but then are often vicious, and somewhat dishonorably treacherous, manipulative, and with significant higher “in-group bias” (which is also part of why Sisterhood uber alles is such a high priority).

No doubt women are very selfish, despite their “cooperative” external.
Not saying that men aren’t also selfish, nor that selfishness is bad.

Ultimately his politics suck and he’s a Blue Pill TradCon Cuck. Still, he’s a great gateway, his greatness coming from a declining cunt-run gynocracy.
It’s up to the individual man, how much he can stomach from Boomer cucks.

@IAS good point, but I think it needs to be considered from the perspective of how our evolved past influences our present day impulses.

For instance, women in the tribal collective no doubt had intrasexual competition amongst themselves, and likely a propensity to attack other women in the psycho-sociological sense (gossip, ostracization, etc.) and generally in order to get access to men with whom they could breed ‘sexy sons’. Yet for all of it women still needed to ensure the security of the community against threats and thus this internecine in-fighting was buffered by a bigger need for survival of the whole. Thus evolved the communitarian aspect of women’s psyches.

In the modern day female dominant work culture the tribal concerns for survival are no longer present, but the psychological vestiges of women’s infighting and communitarian natures still persists in the workplace.

Most men live comeplety feminine lives and therefore know jack and shit about men, beunh a man, manhood and/ or brotherhood.

Right now I am struggeling to come up with a dozen legal professions and a dozen hobbies that would be overtly and robustly masculine, combined with in-group cohesion above all to over come out-group competition

Historically, only 20% of men bred with 80% of women. Hypergamy and women opportunistically breeding with the best physical specimens they had access to

Historically, only 20% of men were free. The rest were slaves and couldn’t marry. Most slaves worked in mines and agriculture. They had no access to women and women lacked access to them. The “20% of men bred” statistic is an artefact of slavery, not of the FI. Whole cities were frequently enslaved in the ancient world and during the Middle Ages, especially by muslims. Women slaves might end up as concubines or prostitutes or possibly house slaves whose sexual favors were enjoyed by the master and those high status males the master wished to gift with sex from his slaves.

Our current state is an anomaly and the FI had very little influence before the 19th century. If a woman lost her husband, she generally had to prostitute herself to provide for her children. Patriarchy has been dominant throughout most of history.

“There are several studies that indicate that collectivism is a characteristic of women’s mental firmware. When presented with the distribution of a common wealth (or resource) it’s women’s predisposition to mete those resources out to the familial, feminine-primary social group (tribe) in as even a distribution as possible, or by an individual’s most pressing needs. Again, this is convincing evidence of a mental framework that leans towards a collectivism that finds its roots in our evolutionary past.”

One of my concerns when I started understanding TRP was that it would escalate the arms race as the info leaked into general culture. It was and is inevitable. I shudder thinking about what happens next. My best guess is that we fall deeper into the place where politics is now: preference falsification and people speaking BP to get along in society but acting RP. The gap between what people say and what people do is going to get wider.

Just consider how far gone we are that this Kermit frog Maple leaf is a truth telling badass hero to millions.

This is valid, but that’s where we are. JP ain’t no Rollo, he pulls his punches; but he might be the bravest and boldest Canadian alive today. Canada is in a FI stranglehold. Ask the Canucks that read and comment here. Peterson sticks his head in the lion’s mouth by holding court at the University of Toronto, where he publicly states many thought crimes about intersexual dynamics in defiance of the narrative. I’ll give credit to the man in the arena even if he’s not the best fighter.

“Just as formal monogamy sought to ensure men could solve their reproductive purpose in spite of his performance burden, now we have women as the primary beneficiaries of a society structured to, theoretically, ensure they have access to both the best genes (Alpha Fucks) and the best provisioning (Beta Bucks) – all to the point that men are conscripted into doing so.”

Long as we’re masticating marrow, I would quibble a bit with our friend LSDGamer’s description of most 80% of Middle Ages men as Muslim slaves. The Mongols had more impact. Islam only got as far as southern Spain and the easternmost parts of Europe and Central Asia. Though if we are speaking of most men in Europe being serfs or villeins (the feudal bourgeoisie, if you will), then I would concur.

But even among the serfs left to themselves the 20/80 Pareto principle applied, according to the genetic data.

Also don’t lose sight that the 80 % of women being nailed by the Alpha 20% are the fuckable ones. One side effect of the modern FI is that a whole lot of ok-but-not-smokin’-hot girls are being left behind and not approached at all due to the raging success of academic male-shaming preventing de-sexed men from even taking a shot at a shy HB5 for fear of being reported and expelled, or in a strict no-fraternization workplace, fired. Sheryl Sandberg’s snag-a-Beta when you’re done starfucking mindset doesn’t connect or help those girls.

How it turns out In the years to come I don’t know, but to repeat the old Michael Crichton cliche, “life will find a way.” As in, alphas gonna alpha, some women will get laid, some sprogs will be squeezed out, but after that, POTRZEBIE.

Funny there is a sisterhood that crosses all lines even sex as some men seem to want to join. Yet there is no great brotherhood of men only small bands threatened with extermination,as the war on terror was and is a war on tribe as well.

I look at the genetic mix differently. The whole 80% of female fucking 20 % of men. In the Stone Age a man had to go out kill a mastodon or fight a bear or lion with a pointy stick. I’m thinking there probly not a lot of able bodied men left after that. So there was not a whole lot choice in the matter. If your whole tribe consist of 80% female & 20 percent male. The genes are gonna get passed down thru history In that fashion regardless of hypergamy choice or war brides dominance. What I am saying is survivors breed and female choice has little to do with who comes back from the hunt or the fight with the neighboring clan

It not just that if you take into account. Black Death Small pox the flu. Survivors get to reproduce. I just don’t see a bunch of teenage kids laying in bed of flowers on a field making choices about who they want to date or marry. Not In the Stone Age. If you got 100 men in your tribe and small poxs kills 80 of them that last 20 get to do a lot of fucking

As long as we are discussing evolutionary psychology, there was a long time of choosing/selecting and evolving human brains out of Africa after the cognitive revolution of humans.

For all of the acceleration of social change with recent technologies, there was a slow grind of selecting normal brain firmware in the masculine and feminine from 70,000 (cognitive revolution) years ago to 12,000 years ago (Agricultural revolution and the start of cooperate flexibly in large numbers of humans).

The former stuff evolved hormones and psyche not the latter stuff in the last 2000 years. The firmware was already in place in a small tribal system. Humans were too successful for their own social good when the procreated hugely, because of their success. Hormones and hind-brains were there first. Then came the later socialization fore-brain (including all the kings having harems stuff).

Socialized systems of huge groups change frequently. As witnessed by the acceleration of change in the last 500 and the last 50 years.

Humans were not meant to cooperate in huge groups, because their firmware was mostly developed in small tribes. Small tribes were how things developed in human psychology and evolved psychology. Large groups invite the order of the day. The subjugation of the individual. The impossibility of tribal cohesiveness. In-group malice and out-group altruism. The opposite of tribal structure.

I would ask KFG for a comment on this line of thought. Anthropology and evolved male/female psychological strategies. This shit didn’t just happen yesterday.

The Agricultural Revolution. Domestication of plants and animals. Permanent settlements.

5,000

First kingdoms, script and money. Polytheistic religions.

4,250

First empire – the Akkadian Empire of Sargon.

2,500

Invention of coinage – a universal money.
The Persian Empire – a universal political order ‘for the benefit of all humans’.
Buddhism in India – a universal truth ‘to liberate all beings from suffering’.

2,000

Han Empire in China. Roman Empire in the Mediterranean. Christianity.

1,400

Islam.

500

The Scientific Revolution. Humankind admits its ignorance and begins to acquire unprecedented power. Europeans begin to conquer America and the oceans. The entire planet becomes a single historical arena. The rise of capitalism.

200

The Industrial Revolution. Family and community are replaced by state and market. Massive extinction of plants and animals.

The Present

Humans transcend the boundaries of planet Earth. Nuclear weapons threaten the survival of humankind. Organisms are increasingly shaped by intelligent design rather than natural selection.

I remember reading somewhere though that throughout history, 40%, maybe even a bit higher, of men got to pass on their genes, compared with 80% of women. If women were left purely to their own devices, that would be 20% of men or less. The norm for humans, even hunter-gatherer bands in prehistory, would be monogamous marriage with polygamy maybe restricted to a few elite males. All stone age societies studied have had this arrangement I think (although with plenty of cheating, cucking and divorcing like our own society). So people have always tried to limit female hypergamy for the greater good of society, even in our distant prehistory.

What, then, is the optimal society? The implication of this post being that old books Marriage 1.0 was the male imperative dominating women, and today the script is flipped and through unfettered hypergamy women now dominate men. I’m not sure why but I will never feel satisfied until I can figure out the balance.

I’d argue that Marriage 1.0 was less imbalanced and less dominating than the current feminine primary social order, for three reasons:

1) Female solipsism prevents women from realistically considering men’s interests, even if it is just to strike a compromise.

2) Men, and interestingly women, report less life satisfaction than in the past. Male suicide rates are at an all time high.

3) The male imperative’s goal of unlimited sexual partners with minimal investment was not realized under the Marriage 1.0 system, whereas under the current feminine primary social order, women’s goal of Alpha Fucks with guaranteed Beta Bucks is realized almost completely, with retroactive or proactive cuckoldry not only common but socially acceptable.

Therefore it appears that Marriage 1.0 was designed (or organically evolved) to facilitate civilization, rather than men’s sexual imperative (although paternal investment and lessening the burden of performance were surely factors also).

Perhaps it was not designed this way at all but simply occurred because the civilizations that prioritized women’s sexual strategies were weaker, and were pushed out competitively by the patriarchal societies that employed Marriage 1.0.

If so we are surely doomed. I imagine if any real attempt was made to revert the gains of feminism since the sexual revolution the hysterics and indignation on the part of women and feminized men would be colossal.

Those cites you linked to are fem-centric. Altruism is not granted lightly among males. And male altruism in male tribes has nothing to do with altruism of men for women. And they (the three cites) don’t account for small vs. large (huge) tribes–which was my point. Bottoms-up approach to sexual strategy? Anyone?

Mainstream media research pablum.

@Yollo

So does this article undo the previous article on brotherhood?

You are not even close to having a coherent question. Maybe go back and read the two essays a few times. Perhaps even click on the recursive links and read those too.

Rollo
. One aspect I think Peterson didn’t get around to explaining in this clip is that women have only had unilateral sexual selection opportunity in the past century due to the social and physical unfettering of Hypergamy.

That statement borders on overly broad. Glubb’s monograph on empires has a few details on the behavior of women at the peak of the Arab empire, as well as the Roman. Literature from the 13th century on down, especially the Troubadorian period, has more details. Women’s covert sexuality makes ample room for the “sneaky f##ker” in many places and times.

This natural tendency is part of AF-BB. No one can seriously argue that it hasn’t been given free rein for the last 50 years, and it was already a bit off the leash before that. But it’s not new, it’s been there all along.

Ok, even if there is not parity in terms of how (biological) deep the impulse of the brotherhood compared to the sisterhood. Men can cognitively reason themselves to forming similar deep bonds.

Just look at the last threads disscusion, several men voluntary provided their advice and support (and condemnation) for a fellow man (mitch). However, how this solidarity manifested itself was in sharing of wisdom, not resources. This impulse to share stories of wisdom, may be the firmware equivalent for men. As ‘locker room talk’ usually revolves around such kind if stories and erupts spontaneously among men. It is evolutionary adaptive, as it allows for the mapping out of wisdom, to do a particular task better, without having to personally go through much of the original (costly) trial and error phase.

Recent research using DNA analysis answered this question about two years ago. Today’s human population is descended from twice as many women as men.

I think this difference is the single most underappreciated fact about gender. To get that kind of difference, you had to have something like, throughout the entire history of the human race, maybe 80% of women but only 40% of men reproduced.

@ SFC Ton, you where saying you are struggling to come up one single masculine profession still around today. I agree that society enlarge is femniszed. However, there are still pockets of male authority. For example

Watch a few clips of the work in the kitchen, that’s a masculine work environment. Another would be construction site, mining, logging and other primary resource extraction. Guess why these are the only masculine spaces that remain..

Diesel
“with retroactive or proactive cuckoldry not only common but socially acceptable.”
Very sincere way to get someone interested in the red pill for what it is. Women who don’t agree an anything in life will band together to get this point across with fervent conviction. You could get a religious women to speak with a lesbian about this in church and it wouldn’t phase them in the cultural context in which we live in.
Brotherhoodhttp://shackletonfoundation.org/about/sir-ernest-shackleton/
On Peterson video
1,500 Warren beatty 10,000 Jamar…. That’s a lot of Tail…
Heart of the mountain

This post made me think of an argument I had with my now ex girlfriend about rockers and their obvious succes with expecially young women.
I wasn’t a reader of the Rational Male at that time – nor was I red pilled in the sence of reading internet blogs, but I still got a sence of rationality regarding stuff in my life and the argument was concerned around the issue, whether women are actually promoting a culture where criminality and a hard outlook – not to mention a violent and extremely macho behavior – because many women (if not most) are sleeping with that type of guys.
We could call them alpha males though I regard most of them more like a kind of beta males or hyper masculinized males who simply take the route of steroids and tripe culture and “learn” to act (or look) macho to fulfil their strategies in life.

The argument started when we were talking about girls participating in parties in places where these types of people hang around. The most extreme example would be rocker clubs.
She refused to aknowledge my point, that if all women would look down at these types of people and would not hang around them (i.e. mate with them), it would simply be less cool to act and look like a steroid-junkie with tattoos all over the body.

@Rollo: There are a number of things packed into this article. It seems rather disconnected wanting to both praise and criticize Peterson while using his aside during a lecture on Genesis to buttress your argument, with a Donovan springboard, that the FI invades male spaces.

I’ll give credit to the man in the arena even if he’s not the best fighter.
Well, it makes sense to separate the message delivery from the message content. His articulation and use of vocabulary make him a great fighter in an intellectual sense. Listening to him is awe-inspiring, especially taking into consideration a lot of his material is off-the-cuff and not prepared.
But I did enjoy those kermit voice-overs of him…

an age in which women will force themselves into male space as overseers

I think that women see male spaces as opportunities for sex and attention-whoring. A church receptionist commented to me that she would have liked to go to a men’s church event which featured a guest speaker and bar b que. She said, “I like meat!”

Of course, if she were to attend and find anything objectionable at the event, the sisterhood would need to oversee the men. Camel’s nose leads to male space becoming a safe space–i.e., a female space.

There it is: hidden ovulation as a strategy for a high-fat, high-protein diet. The males compete for a place in the cooperative hunting party and, on success, have a wealth of calories which they can choose (or not) to share with one or more females. The male wealth is proportionate to his status in the tribe as well as his contribution to the chase-and-kill (cooperative male meritocracy). The females exchange coitus for food. Ovulatory shift made females compete for the best meat and males compete for the ovulating females.

Peterson is currently expanding his in house squad and doing a ton of “alt-right” research as he has been painted as Alt-right, a label which he contests. Nevertheless he is doing a lot of research on it and sooner or later he’s going to end up at RM. I am not trying to conflate RM with alt-right. I think 18 months ago Alt-right was very different than it is today. The MSM likes to simply use Alt-right as another name for racism and white nationalists etc without taking any time to sort out its many variants. Swimming around in a lot of alt-right stuff is evo-bio, biological essentiallism etc. all things that RP and RM butt up against with great frequency. Either way, I think it just a matter of time before the Rollo’s writings get taken up by Peterson.

I suspect he’ll get a lead on an RM article or two and soon he will be devouring it and using it to fine tune his general view of the world. It’s compelling, it’s coherent, it’s observable, it’s testable, it’s built on science and not conjecture. As such I think the message will get to him sooner than later.

In fairness to the man he has taken on a giant fucking fight with the entire culture he swims in daily and he is out there in public taking hits left right and center. Even if he doesn’t take up a full blown RP view of the world currently, who really cares? Keep in mind that this is the same guy that is saying outright that women’s studies programs are toxic and should all be defunded. Granted, he comes at it from the end that cultural marxism and post-modernist thought are cancerous to the Western project for about 100 different reasons. But it’s entirely valid criticism nevertheless.

To me, even if his views, theories and theses don’t entirely align with RM, it doesn’t matter. To me it’s simply a pincer movement where JP attacks the underlying fatally flawed ideology and Rollo is attacking the underlying evo-psch angles. I think it simply a matter of time before they converge into a coherent set of ideas and thoughts.

I predict than within the next twelve months we’er going to hear Rollo and JBP hashing it out on a podcast of some kind debating these very ideas.

“It is precisely this competitive mental firmware in men which makes it next to impossible for their to ever be a Brotherhood Über Alles – and in an age where men are shamed for masculinity, an age in which women will force themselves into male space as overseers, an age where men will adaptively define masculinity to mean whatever suits their weakest proficiencies, it’s easy to understand the difficulties in men cooperatively coming together to enforce their own collective best interests as men. In ages past, when masculine cooperation determined the fate of a tribe, a people, a nation, etc. this fraternity was a much more imperative concept for men.”

I think this is both right and wrong and the manosphere itself is evidence of that. First off the fate of the nation so to speak is in fact broken. Every day a lot more people are waking up to that fact or variants of that fact. they may be looking at the economy, or divorce rates, or the dating market and realizing all of it is really pretty fucked up. they are likewise waking up to the fact that they are being dished garbage daily by the so called cultural and thought leaders of their nations. Every single day I run into people, mostly men, who are shaking their head at the dissonance between what they are being told and what actually is. They are desperate for truths, any truths, even truths that cannot be connected to any others. They just want someone to say what is actually going on and not put some ideological spin on things. From those truths come respect. For the liars, disrespect. It doesn’t happen overnight and people need to learn to think but they do learn and they do think. SO I posit that the manosphere is evidence of men coming together not as brotherhood per se, but rather as a logical reaction to the sisterhood (FI).

So I find the more I drop truths in front of men in particular that fly in the face of say MSM talking points, the more men perk up and give knowing glances. 99.9% of them have no idea what to do with it, but they know something is up. They know their culture is being destroyed, the know they will in no way be able to live like their fathers or those before them because something is very very wrong. They are waking up to the fact that something very important is being lost somehow.

So I think, I believe, it is within that context that we will in fact see men not women setting aside differences to hash out abstract ideas with the end goal of re-establishing some kind of functional order. Yes, that kind of thing will always be susceptible to being poisoned by female participation but increasingly men will use reason to push aside the dividing forces. Truth, essential biological truth for example will begin to form a core of knowledge that men can rally around to beat back the various things that are eroding society as we know it. Yes inevitably there will be intrasexual competition that can derail “brotherhood” but certain truths are going to keep popping up and creating an undeniable baseline for men who are engaged with truth.

JBP actually talks about a variant of this in discussing competition. We need rules for competition to work, we set the terms of the game and we cooperate by agreeing to the terms of any game or competition and playing by those terms, but then with the cooperation of playing by the rules we still get to be competitive. In doing so we build dominance hieracrhies that we can then do with them what we want. When we get into those competetive spheres we naturally default to being competetive and looking at what works and what does not. The more men see unrestrained hypergamy at work that more they will realize natural or constructed make dominance “works” and positive masculinity WORKS. Traditional family formation works way better that whatever the FI is doing right now (50% illegitimate children etc).

My point is, the evo-bio truths if understood by enough men ARE THE RULES weather we choose to abide by them or not. Nature is a harsh fucking referee when it comes to those rules. When we as men adopt those rules, those truths, and we live according to them, be it being an Alpha fux guy or a provider dude, you push out the imposed rules of the FI.

So yes, I agree that the FI will constantly be trying to move the goal posts on what constitutes “masculinity” for example. But I also think that if simply enough men, a critical mass of men, living say according to principles of RP, RP will become an undeniable truth that too many men will see to be able to deny. The demonstrable winning of RP men will also end up as undeniable in the great competition.

If you get to that point you don’t need a brotherhood uber alles for men to eventually be able to push back on the FI and all that it has done. It’s going to implode under the weight of its own contradictions if it keeps doing what its doing. What we see now are desperate moves by the radical left to try and deny a whole shit ton of very obvious contradictions and their protestations are getting louder by the day indicating their weakness.

It won’t be pretty, it’ll all blow up hard and when it does it’s not going to be the FI that puts it all back together in a functional way. It’l be a bunch of groups of guys rooted in the truth.

To help men gain status independent of women, Hipster Racist has advised young men to join and contribute to all-men community groups like Masonic lodges and Lions Clubs, whose leaders are generally old and ready to pass the initiative to younger generations. Man wins status in all-male group, man is more attractive to woman, woman wants to marry man. Men might thus improve their collective stake in the intersexual conflict Rollo hammers on, where the society-wide operative sexual strategy–male or female–is determined. In sports teams and the military, men form hierarchies around a common goal, and women respond to the status formed by that. College fraternities have the same aura to some extent, although I don’t know much about that given I am a GDI (g-d d-mned independent).

Re: Eve in Garden of Eden JBP says “At least she had an excuse!” No. There is no verse in Genesis saying or implying this in any way. JBP is the excuser (aka, “White Knight”). He clearly missed the mythological expression, which describes female hypergamy. (Odd for a Jung/Campbell teacher, right?) Consider – here’s paradise, you’re living in a perfect garden walled off from the precarious and dangerous randomness outside (nature), every need provided for and in direct communion with God. Who could ask for more!?! *She* could and did ask for more and hypergamy doesn’t care. Snake knew who to tempt. Adam’s sin? Appeasing, rather than limiting, hypergamy. Check Genesis for the consequences. Or look around. Love JBP but be forewarned that he is repeatedly ‘Blue Pill’ about intergender dynamics

But seriously. Of course it doesn’t undo it. That was a poor choice of words on my part. It’s just a reminder for me to brush up on my leadership skills as much as my leadership qualifications. And to keep a mindful eye on who’s trying to guide my judgement on what makes a “good” leader.

“Consider – here’s paradise, you’re living in a perfect garden walled off from the precarious and dangerous randomness outside (nature), every need provided for and in direct communion with God. Who could ask for more!?! *She* could and did ask for more and hypergamy doesn’t care.”

Once more with Feelz: we would all do better to keep in mind that TRP in particular and evo-psych in general transcend the alt-Right, the alt-Left, and those with no Alts at all. The alt-right trying to contain and channel evo psych is forcing the science into a political frame, like Social Darwinism tried to do with evolution. All of which is just as pointless and dishonest as SJW Lysenkoism (in its classic Soviet-era sense and in the modern day senses we all know: i.e., stupidly thinking we can change human behavior by doubleplusgood think that heterosexuality is a disease to be stamped out, all masculinity is toxic until you need someone to pull you out of the flood waters, saying you can change gender and orientation like you change socks – hey wait! Isn’t that the same as gay conversion therapy which did the same thing by beating it out of you? – etc.

And remember that the right is not anywhere near unanimous in accepting the principles and findings of evo psych. Churchians don’t like it because it’s full of evil-lotion. Those who don’t gag on that natural history (as we know) gag on its unchivalrous and uncourtly revelations that humans act like other animals and have sexual strategies that are to be obeyed, which strategies are not themselves good or evil, marriage class catechisms notwithstanding.

The whole point is this stuff transcends DWEM European culture, Islam, Buddhism, Shintoism, Hinduism, Confucian-ism, socialism, whatever -ism of your choice. It was true before there were any -isms, and will remain true for those future humans left in the ruins of radioactive cockroach culture.

A woman who wants you – no matter what – is the best for a LTR. One of those stumbled on me 43 years ago. Nothing I could do would shake her. She did get annoyed – often – but she always came back. Even more so when I had another GF.

@Rollo: I think JBP just operates on a different continuum than you; yours is a Red/Blue binary; his is a Truth/Malevolent binary where malevolent tends to harmful sociopathic behavior. While there are sociopathic females, males make up the clear majority of that population. To that end, I’d suggest JBP sees females as neutral–neither ascending to Truth nor descending to Malevolence.

To use your example of collectivism above, last century (prior to the legalization of abortion), was deadly for both males and females when male sociopaths attempted to enact their ideal vision of collectivism.

Hi all. Any advice on the following would be greatly appreciated as I am sort of lost. I currently work for a non profit and make around 52k a year. I have received a few minor raises over the years and we also receive a yearly bonus in the realm of 1200 bucks. We also have a pension to which the company pays around $120 every 2 weeks into your 401k, so roughly $3100 a year. So my total comp is around $55k. My recent now ex gf would use this against me at times as she was/is making close to 80k. She would say things like “you don’t make enough money” etc.”you’re not motivated” etc. Now those are fair points I guess and my current job is relatively low stress, flexible hours, etc. My current work is communications based but my real passion has always been on the creative side of things (copywriter, coming up with ads or commercials) however I realized this too late and do not have any portfolio. I am currently working on writing a book and have written some freelance work, but nothing that could be considered portfolio worthy.

My job will pay for classes if they align with your current work and I want to do something that will enhance my marketability. I was interested in obtaining a master certificate in project management but have heard from a few people that I should try and get a masters in public health (MPH) instead. So now I am conflicted in whether I should pursue an MPA, MPH, or the project management courses. Does anyone have any experience with any of these? I sort of feel “stuck” and the whole breakup is making me question everything in my life. Any advice would be helpful.

I still abject to the notion that superior genetic material gets passed down thru history. How do we know this ? How do you know the best genes didn’t get shit out the back side of a saber tooth tiger a half a million years back. Their is a luck factor that no one talks about in evo- psych. A luck factor that is unknown. Look at Texas flood the lucky get picked up and the unlucky drown. Imagine that 2 million years ago when the world was a harder place to live. I think luck plays a larger part in evolution than alpha – beta. And hypergamy is the luxury of survival. Survial first choice second. And another thought is that pre historic times children would be the only security against want in old age the only insurance to insure that a old lady was feed. Does she really give a care as to who fathered it. Or maybe I’m just miss understanding Jordan Peterson and this essay

[Attraction/Arousal to what makes for good genetics isn’t necessarily what makes for the best species survival benefit. For instance, all the ‘hawt’ guys women lust after may have some genetic flaw that predisposes their offspring to being stillborn; it still doesn’t make that guy any less hot to a woman because his arousal cues are what women filter for.]

Agent P said: “So I think, I believe, it is within that context that we will in fact see men not women setting aside differences to hash out abstract ideas with the end goal of re-establishing some kind of functional order.”

It could work. Rollo’s point that men are competitive with each other doesn’t negate the fact that societies did settle on monogamy as scheme for a long time. In some hunter gatherer tribes the convention is that all men go hunting. Women flock to the men who bring back meat so men divide it up before they return so that every man has some. Not saying that anything like that or monogamy will happen again but men can set rules for their social hierarchy. They should.

I am a Muslim, and live in a secular Muslim country, Turkey. At first, upon hearing hypergamy at manosphere, I’d thought it was an overrated phenomenon, that things can’t be so severe globally, that maybe it’s that bad only in the western societies. God… I was totally wrong. Buckle-up for what you’ll read now.

A 50-something old, village lady from a very religious, conservative part of my country ran away with her lover. She had a 20-something daughters. In that part of the country, such actions of women are traditionally (although illegally) addressed with a bullet since they are considered the greatest shame for the man. Even the courts (we have secular ones with the continental European practice, not sharia) are required by law to offer leniency for the killer in such cases due to the provocation and the gravity of the offense.

Upon hearing the woman’s story, it hit me like a bus on high speed. The need for the game never ends, not even in your 30 year old marriage with a woman whose smv is below zero. A man can never lower his guard regarding the game. The lady in the story was by no means an attractive cougar. She was a hunchback farmer with whom sex would be a torture for any man that isn’t visually-impaired. Yet it didn’t stop hypergamy. It got me thinking seriously about the viability of the marriage institution, even in traditional societies like mine. If women can branchswing even when they have the most (their life) to lose, what will stop them? I guess men should forget the concept of total loyalty even if you are an alpha in body&mind, have resources, looks

Point taken, indeed. Surprised I was to see some evo-biologists chafe at evo-psych, you would think they would look for congruence in their respective disciplines. Maybe their own politics are getting in the way of accepting it, their bad. You’d think they’d have crushing retorts to Dr. Haselton and such. But the data holds up.

M. SimonWell yes. I made my point in the original comment. I haven’t changed my mind.

LOL, your original point wasDemocrats are the woman’s party Mostly. Republicans are the man’s party. Mostly.

Hey, 1996 called, they want your Rush Limbaugh approved talking points back, since you haven’t changed your mind in the last 20 years.

Meanwhile, your “man’s party” features Cryin Ryan, Dennis Hastert, Jeb Bush, and Marco Rubio, and Mitt Romney and more, many more. Your “man’s party” has no problem renewing VAWA. Your “man’s party” is totally happy with the Duluth Protocol. Your “man’s party” responds to all the young men with “manUP!” and nothing more.

Enjoy your life in the past, whether 1996 or 1988, 1968, whatever. Here in 2017 there is no “man’s party”. That’s the point that you clearly do not get.

SJB I think JBP just operates on a different continuum than you; yours is a Red/Blue binary; his is a Truth/Malevolent binary where malevolent tends to harmful sociopathic behavior. While there are sociopathic females, males make up the clear majority of that population. To that end, I’d suggest JBP sees females as neutral–neither ascending to Truth nor descending to Malevolence.

That would be another form of pedestalization, and blank-slate thinking. I would hope he’s not that ignorant, foolish or stupid. Just because sociopathy in women is not the same as sociopathy in men doesn’t mean there are fewer of them as a percentage.

In fact, given the enthusiasm that women show for abortion, one could argue the majority of women are sociopathic to some degree.

And so it proceeds exactly as I have predicted; although much quicker than I initially anticipated. Rollo is shedding his apolitical drag one filthy, deceitful garment at a time. His use of the phrase Sisterhood “Uber Alles” is quite a revealing Freudian ‘slip’. Too bad the undereducated and poorly endowed intellects of the ‘manosphere’ autodidacts who venerate the godfather of “Red Pill” pseudo-intellectualism are deaf, dumb and blind to the dog whistle call to the seductive vestiges of former Third Reich glory. What new allusion to Nazism comes next? How about “Is there any form of foulness that at least one feminist has not partaken?”

The rightful intelligentsia of The West has long ago unraveled the female psyche, which of course tends towards socialist social structures. Congratulations Stormtroopers, you have now discovered 1950s cutting edge thought. Rollo’s middle school level dissection of the carcass of Western Civilization is not going to earn your kind the slightest victory in the realm of realpolitik. We have the academy. We have the mass media. We have the congress and the courts. And we will soon have the people’s intranets, a la the Chinese paradigm. The powers that be have no use for a resurgent patriarchy of a populist flavor. For this reason Trump is already a lame duck, a mere false messiah to the right. Communism may be dead but its first cousin socialism, enforced by a benevolent but firm matriarchy, is the inevitable future. In the end you will listen to your mother. Not because she is always correct; but because she ultimately controls the money and owns the house. “Red Pill” adolescent rebellion can only be taken so far in the real world. Is that clear boys?

P.S. Thought I’d talk down to earth in a language y’all can easily understand.

@ Waffles; Do the job you want not what your former personal over-seer from the FI would want you to do. You decide how much of burden of performance that you want to carry or not.

With regards to $; My SO makes 2X what I do, and only once did the issue of making more money come up. I had lost frame, my bad, over some issue and this was her attack on me. My response was to set up a separate account for a fraction of my pay instead of full deposit into the family account. I withdrew my time, attention, and cash resources. She knows I have this account, not a secret at all, and she will try to pry some of my money from this account by various means. It’s an odd dynamic, but she will be very demure and feminine while trying to convince me to provide from this account. After reading this Essay, I know why. She doesn’t take all of my support for granted, and it’s a game where she is trying to garner resources from me, which fits the FI narrative.

Very hugely important. Makes his progress towards reality all the more impressive, because he’s so incredibly atypical even for his own age cohort. Thanks for that info.

Agreed, but it’s also indicative of JBP’s Blue Pill mindset with regard to women.

It’s the same situation with Steven Pinker and Warren Farrell. They have brilliant deductive minds and write books about the social, evolutionary, psychological and biological aspects of Red Pill awareness but it’s just too far a step for them to face the abyss and connect the dots that would lead them away from comforting Blue Pill idealisms they’ve held since their earliest years. So they add caveats to their findings – Pinker constantly bleats about being a feminist himself and Farrell wont let go of his equalism security blanket (which is what makes him an MRM sweetheart).

I took Athol Kay to task for his lack of experience with any women beyond his wife since I was introduced to him. He’s another guy who had a good grasp on the Red Pill but simply couldn’t get past the part of the Blue Pill that makes him walk back his message so as not to offend his investments in the ‘goodness’ of women.

I should also add that this inability to want to see past comforting Blue Pill hopes is also the reason evo-bio chafes at what evo-psych reveals for them. Evo-psych shows them the abyss and it’s too unsettling for them.

Leon, back in the day, your strain of political theory was called “Communistic Niggerism.” You have pushed it a little further to “Communistic Single-Mommyism.” Oh boy, that is brill-ee-unt. I stand in awe.

I am sooo hurt to be called a Storm Trooper. Just sooo hurt.

If the men don’t overthrow the Matriarchy, perhaps the women will and set up a Patriarchy anew. Women don’t seem to like the puerile manginas that the Matriarchy is shoving at them to breed with.

In the manosphere the other idea is that women don’t like to be in groups or secretly hate each other in a group or at least between groups…. so where is the default sisterhood?

I recently was reading Ian Ironwood’s essays about Male Social Matrixes and The Female social matrix. He also turned these essays into a Kindle book.

There’s a difference between the top down Sisterhood (feminism, political shit), and the bottoms up sisterhood of female groups. I’m not sure if you are asking about the top down Sisterhood, or a Tribal, Bottoms-Up sisterhood.

I was reading Ironwood’s essays because of behavior I was seeing among the non-desperate housewives of my country club. (Those girls are really trying hard. My wife was really trying hard with some crab bucket mentality.) Because of the matrix, I’m also getting in some crab bucket mate guarding built into the program. Both her telling me not to get close to certain women, and my wife being critical of other cheating wives and placing her in a moralistic, can’t be seen as that type of “slut”.

The default sisterhood is: establishing social position through consensus and alliances and then defending it. It’s inefficient for getting things done. It’s not designed to get something done, but to be fair. Back in the day, that got more children in the tribe fed.

Women may or may not like their group, but they still default to consensus building.

When you say “in the manosphere the other idea”…..I have sneaking suspicion that’s because there is a lot of masculinizing of modern day feminist women. So some of that “not liking their role in a female group” might be because of that. I.e. they act masculine. I see that at the club from some less feminine types.

The default sisterhood was elaborately described in a number of essays well written by Ian Ironwood in regards to the Female social matrix.

As always, a real writer can and has said it better than I can so I present to you a long reading assignment that I curated for your open-ended question:

I find it odd to realize that most men don’t observe something that is obvious to every woman I know: that there is a competitive male dynamic to groups that is completely different from the way female groups act. They don’t know, of course, because unless the group is overwhelmingly female, the dynamic of any mixed group always defaults to male, with women fading back into supporting conversational roles. Maybe it’s the kind of thing you can only observe by contrast to the extremely anti-competitive nature of female groups.

The easiest way to put it (and this is hardly original) is that men in groups are focused on their role within the group. Women in groups are focused on the group. Men gain status by standing out from the group; women gain status by submerging themselves into it — by strengthening the group, often at the expense of themselves.

Leon, back again with his(?) Ivory Tower pablum; so chock full of student-grade group-think; so excited to learn big scary words that explain the world and how it works… it’s just like those hard sciences, but with more wiggle room for the stuff you don’t like

I’m sure you’re the the prof’s star pupil and undoubtedly that will be at the top of your resume should you ever venture in to the real world; be sure to tell any prospective employers how they’ve been doing it all wrong and now that you’ve arrived they can rejoice

so keep trolling, keep using big words that you only half understand… makes your snot-nosed ramblings more entertaining

Oh so now we’re all Nazis because German language. Oh wow man, what a burn. I better rethink my entire view of the world and embrace socialism.

How old are you? maybe 27?

Have you ever been to a truly socialist or communist county? You ever spent time among the indigenous population of a socialist country, I don’t mean on the tourist beach in Cuba either? I think you may find its not everything your profs paint it out to be for ya.

Have you ever been responsible for anything ever in your life, I mean beyond putting on pants in the morning and not getting run over? Ever managed a few other people or any assets of any measure for any meaningful period of time?

Have you ever built anything, I mean with your actual hands, not an argument, but rather like a car or a house, a business, anything? Perhaps you’ve done something simple like raise a child to adulthood.

Tell us about your vast and deep experience in the world. Tell us of your deep wisdom that gives your such an authoritative air. You now that I have to renounce Nazism and all that I am back to being a blank slate again and I need direction, so go ahead, help me fill in some blanks. Dazzle me with your leadership skills.